Changes

===And what happened to gravitational energy?===

===And what happened to gravitational energy?===

And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins that it is not there at all? Here we came to the real question. The answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter in

And what is the ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins that it is not there at all? Here we came to the real question. The answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter of the famous Einstein's equation.

:<math>E=mc^2</math>

:<math>E=mc^2</math>

that was differentiated above to produce "gravitational force".

that was differentiated in the section above to produce "gravitational force".

What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. It it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school.  

What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. If it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school<ref>So why don't you teach it in high schools? I say. Explanation in part 3, titled '''sociology'''.</ref>.  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but supressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student enymore and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif and such, shouldn't be linked to from their server. So I just typed it in manually into CP server and let see how long it survives here.  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but suppressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student any more and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif shouldn't be linked to from their server making them suspected of supporting my papers. So when the university banned my main one page paper ''"[[Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]"'' I typed it in into conservapedia as essay, and let's see how long it survives here.  

Let's hope that CP reders don't consider anybody who don't share their prejudice about the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently the main cosmological theory of our times, not so seriously as RW readers did, making it clear that I should find myself a better environment for debunking the Big Bang, apparently supported even by Richard Dawkins. Which I did.

Let's hope that CP readers don't consider anybody who don't share their prejudice about the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently the main cosmological theory of our times, not so seriously as RW readers did. They made it clear that a crackpot like me should find himself different environment for debunking the Big Bang, apparently supported even by [[Richard Dawkins]]. Too bad that not by the elementary physics.  

For the time being you, the readers of CP, may find it in a form of my paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] or in simpler version that a high school student may repeat herself or himself [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of step by step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' for our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''"surely"'' expanding. And this way converting the majority of non believers into believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe from nothing as it was planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in it too, just was ashamed to admit being a [[relativists|relativist]] himself. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating according to his belief in "attractive gravitational force", while the expansion turned out to be apparent only and looking like accelerating. That I managed to explain after splitting the illusion of acceleration to Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation.

For the time being, you, the readers of CP, may find except a short form of my paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe|here]], or a longer form, with extensions that physicists normally "know by heart", but which a high school student may repeat [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of a step by step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' of our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''"surely"'' expanding since ''"so many astronomers can't be all wrong"''.  

 

Incidentally, the majority of non believers of RW turned out to be believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe from nothing as it might be planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in it too. He just might be ashamed to admit it being a [[relativists|relativist]] himself. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating due to his belief in "attractive gravitational force", while the expansion turned out to be looking like accelerating. That I managed to explain after splitting the illusion of acceleration into Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation.

===Why cranks are sometimes right===

===Why cranks are sometimes right===